Panchkula: The Punjab and Haryana high court has granted regular bail to an accused in the Panchkula firing case, citing absence of direct evidence and delays in the trial. The order was passed by Justice H S Grewal in favour of petitioner Sahil, who had been booked in connection with an FIR registered on Dec 23, 2024, at Pinjore Police Station under various sections of BNS and the Arms Act.According to the prosecution, the firing incident occurred around 2.40am near a hotel in Panchkula. Two unidentified youths allegedly arrived in a car and opened indiscriminate fire. Three individuals — Vineet alias Vicky, Tirth, and Vandana alias Nia— suffered gunshot injuries during the attack. The assailants later fled from the scene while firing in the air.During the investigation, the name of the petitioner surfaced through a disclosure statement made by co-accused Manish Kali. It was alleged that Sahil, along with others, travelled to Panchkula in a Kia Seltos car and assisted in handing over weapons and ammunition to the main accused on the instructions of another person.Sahil’s counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case and was named only on the basis of the disclosure of the co-accused. It was submitted that Sahil had no prior criminal record and had merely accompanied others without any direct involvement in the firing incident.The state opposed the bail plea, pointing out the serious nature of the allegations. The state counsel also informed the court that none of the 83 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, indicating that the trial had not progressed.After hearing both sides, the high court observed that except for the disclosure statement, there was no substantial material linking the petitioner directly to the crime. The court noted that the trial was yet to begin and held that prolonged incarceration without commencement of proceedings would not serve the interests of justice.While granting bail, the high court reiterated the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” The petitioner has been directed to furnish the required bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The court also clarified that if the accused is found involved in any other criminal activity while on bail, the state would be free to move for cancellation of his bail.
